• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
I had a look back for previous times Vixen has told us the Atlantic lock was thrown back into the sea, since it was of course she who introduced the idea to the thread.

I found her quoting and highlighting "the Kurm report 2006" as saying;



Also quoted but not highlighted was the previous sentence;


I hope this encourages Vixen to appreciate that the scenario she's been trying to convince us about, where the lock bolt was briefly looked at on the sea bed then discarded, is just a product of her own imagination.

I presume the report she quotes is this enclosed document on the EFD site.: https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/pdf/Enclosure33.PDF
Click to expand...

From YLE reporting on the recent presentation showing the Estonian preliminary findings from the Arikas expedition in July 2021:

In connection with the main investigation, a magnetic survey will be conducted in March to find material detached from the wreck. Researchers hope to find a locking bolt that has come off the bow visor, for example.
Click to expand...

Likewise, Margus Kurm, referring to his expedition in September 2021:

"Should we find the Atlantic lock securing bolt the initial investigative committee threw back, we will definitely bring it to the surface," Kurm promised.

The so-called Atlantic lock with which the bow visor was attached to the ferry was raised to the surface during the investigation into the causes of the disaster in the 1990s but was eventually thrown back into the sea because of its size and weight.

"I have thought about handing the lock over to the Maritime Museum should we find it," Kurm said when asked what plans the team has for items recovered.

Kurm said he considers it important for the recovered items to be made available to everyone and could be studied more closely. He added, however, that he does not consider it likely the expedition will find the Atlantic lock.
Click to expand...
ERR

Do you still dispute the lock is not still on the seabed?
 
Vixen said:
From YLE reporting on the recent presentation showing the Estonian preliminary findings from the Arikas expedition in July 2021:



Likewise, Margus Kurm, referring to his expedition in September 2021:

ERR

Do you still dispute the lock is not still on the seabed?
Click to expand...

No one is disputing this.
What people are disputing is your declaration, it was never brought to the surface at all. Because that declaration is simply not true.

Edit. If we understand your word 'lock', to mean 'bolt'.
 
Last edited:
Here_to_learn said:
Since I do have access to the source material, I did go back to the archives for the two swedish newspapers.

It all starts with Svenska Dagbladet SvD, that on the 11th of march 2001 has an interview with Gustav Hanuliak (GH). He was a dive advisor onboard the dive ships during the dive.

GH describes what he sees as disorganized work onboard the dive ship, especially related to what is kept and what is discarded. https://www.svd.se/arkiv/2001-03-11/4 (subscription required)

This is then followed up by Dagens Nyheter DN, that comments on the DN article with an interview with Kari Lehtola KL. https://www.dn.se/arkiv/inrikes/kastat-estonia-material-oviktigt/ KL reports that he's fine with things having been thrown back, since:



My translation: It was mostly the Atlantic Lock bolt that was talked about at the time. But it didn't matter for the investigation, since it had been measured, and the changes to the bolt had been documented. We also have access to underwater photos of the bolt.

The DN article ends with KL being irritated with the Independent Fact Group, with the comment "they distribute a lot of "suspicions" to the media, with the hope to be able to sell their services". (My translation)

Finally - why was GH unhappy about things having been thrown back into the sea? It's explained in the SvD article. It was because he was irritated on all conspiracy theories being spread. Because GH is "fully convinced that bad welds are the cause of the accident", and that "Estonia was not exposed to any bombs and there was no conspiracy behind the accident". (my translations)
Click to expand...

Speaking of the pesky newspapers who keep peddling conspiracy theories - no wonder Lehtola and Kaur were exasperated! - see attached newspaper headline alleging a bomb attack. The little people should just do as they are told and not ask questions. Honestly!

Seriously though, it is telling that Lehtola is happy with the radio and telecommunications that night, together with the failed EPIRB's and the atlantic lock tossed back into the sea. You would never guess there had been any problem with any of these, reading the report. Of course, Lehtola being a lawyer and Bildt being a politician, never got their hands or the cuffs of their shirtsleeves dirty. At least the Swedish guy Stenström was a diver and engineer and mucked in. Who cares if he tossed the wretched thing back onto the seabed. If he says it was fine it was fine. Lehtola is not going to countenance any talk of anything other than the waves bullying the bow visor that night.
 

Attachments

  • EjEQEERWoAEHWUL.jpg
    EjEQEERWoAEHWUL.jpg
    112.1 KB · Views: 2
Vixen said:
Examined by WHOM?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter for the question whether it was ever brought to the surface.
Which it was. And evidence to which even you linked to.
But you still continue to say it was never even brought to the surface. Why?
 
erwinl said:
Doesn't matter for the question whether it was ever brought to the surface.
Which it was. And evidence to which even you linked to.
But you still continue to say it was never even brought to the surface. Why?
Click to expand...

I assumed the diving platform was underwater. If it was literally brought out of the water, it doesn't change the IMPORTANT fact, it was thrown back onto the seabed (or so claims Stenström) . It was never made available for examination. It was enough that he just looked at it and claims he measured it but I suspect it was measured 'by eye' as I doubt he had a tape measure hanging around his neck.
 
Vixen said:
The front 'luxury' cabins were occupied by a retired sea captain and his wife, the Voronin family, Captain Piht and various members of the Stockholm Police ST Department. Also in adjacent cabins were the chief engineer and chief medical officer. All presumed dead, after initially being listed as survivors, with only the Voronin family and an old sea captain as survivors. Divers were sent to retrieve various items from those cabins, including an attaché case from Piht's cabin, but had the name tag 'Voronin', so either he was sharing the same cabin - and this is common on these ferries - or the police mixed up Voronin's cabin with his. The fact they had to break down the door tells you they were looking for something specific, and although it was the Rockwater divers, it did not seem to be on their survey remit, but you can see all these side searches on the Rockwater tape.

Members Tripod


As the JAIC deals with none of this, it must be a police matter, who as you know, don't have a requirement to explain anything to the public.


Aside: and you thought Jutta Rabe's character in Baltic Storm with an attaché case strapped to his wrist was a corny bad B-list spy movie plot, but actually, it is based on fact.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no hint in that transcript that either the diver or his contact on the surface had any familiarity with the name Voronin or thought it had any significance. The diver couldn't properly read it despite multiple attempts and the controller said "OK, I'll just see if that name rings a bell up here".

I see you are now rowing back from your previous claim of police divers going down to the wreck and are instead now proclaiming that it is somehow obvious that the non-police divers were acting here on police instruction. It isn't. Nor is it clear which police would have any jurisdiction to order divers to do any of this. It's all very well for you to claim this search wasn't part of the Rockwater divers remit but this does not appear to be any more than baseless guesswork about what their remit actually was.

Aside: I didn't watch your "corny bad B-list spy movie" I just jumped to the end to read the closing credits.
 
Vixen said:
... The divers, as is the usual protocol had instructions through one earpiece - and we hear a British voice instructing 'Dave' what to do on the tape - but there are also instructions from another person in the other earpiece, which is mute on the tape and we are not privy to.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you know this?

Can you quote us transcript, or link us to a recording, of Dave the diver replying to instructions which we do not hear?
 
Vixen said:
I assumed the diving platform was underwater. If it was literally brought out of the water, it doesn't change the IMPORTANT fact, it was thrown back onto the seabed (or so claims Stenström) . It was never made available for examination. It was enough that he just looked at it and claims he measured it but I suspect it was measured 'by eye' as I doubt he had a tape measure hanging around his neck.
Click to expand...

What were the measurements that were declared concerning this bolt?
You can't say you don't know, because they were part of a series of posts, where you participated in.
You now say, these measurements, on that scale of accuracy, were done 'by eye'?
 
Vixen said:
I assumed the diving platform was underwater. If it was literally brought out of the water, it doesn't change the IMPORTANT fact, it was thrown back onto the seabed (or so claims Stenström) . It was never made available for examination. It was enough that he just looked at it and claims he measured it but I suspect it was measured 'by eye' as I doubt he had a tape measure hanging around his neck.
Click to expand...

Why would you think a diving support ship tasked with the recovery and inspection of specific parts wouldn't have the facilities or personnel capable of inspecting and measuring the items recovered?

Why do you think only one man was involved?
 
erwinl said:
No one is disputing this.
What people are disputing is your declaration, it was never brought to the surface at all. Because that declaration is simply not true.

Edit. If we understand your word 'lock', to mean 'bolt'.
Click to expand...


And it bears repeating - loudly perhaps, since Vixen appears incapable of listening - that the bolt was not the part of the bottom lock which failed..

The part of the bottom lock which failed was the lugs which were attached to the forepeak deck of the main superstructure.

So therefore, those lugs and their points of attachment to the forepeak deck were/are the only parts of the bottom lock that were/are of any real value to the investigation. And those parts were raised and kept.

The bolt is/was of no value. Once it had been properly examined and found to be in decent shape (and therefore not in itself responsible for the failure of the bottom lock), it became irrelevant from an investigatory perspective.
 
Vixen said:
Speaking of the pesky newspapers who keep peddling conspiracy theories - no wonder Lehtola and Kaur were exasperated! - see attached newspaper headline alleging a bomb attack. The little people should just do as they are told and not ask questions. Honestly!

Seriously though, it is telling that Lehtola is happy with the radio and telecommunications that night, together with the failed EPIRB's and the atlantic lock tossed back into the sea. You would never guess there had been any problem with any of these, reading the report. Of course, Lehtola being a lawyer and Bildt being a politician, never got their hands or the cuffs of their shirtsleeves dirty. At least the Swedish guy Stenström was a diver and engineer and mucked in. Who cares if he tossed the wretched thing back onto the seabed. If he says it was fine it was fine. Lehtola is not going to countenance any talk of anything other than the waves bullying the bow visor that night.
Click to expand...


No, you misunderstand, Vixen (how surprising.....).

It's not that the newspapers were necessarily "peddling conspiracy theories". Rather, it's that the newspapers were reporting speculatively and in the absence of sufficient evidence. Particularly, of course, in the days following the disaster - when speculation was rife, the appetite of the public for stories about the sinking was rampant, and the actual evidence base was nearly non-existent.

Get it right, please.
 
Vixen said:
Do you still dispute the lock is not still on the seabed?
Click to expand...

I never, ever disputed that the bolt was eventually thrown back into the sea. The nearest I ever came to saying anything like that is to point out that one of the sources you quoted says the bolt was left on the dive support vessel rather than helicoptered away.

What I dispute is your baseless claim that it was at best cursorily examined and your later frankly bizarre claim that it was not brought to the surface to be examined.
 
Vixen said:
I assumed the diving platform was underwater. If it was literally brought out of the water, it doesn't change the IMPORTANT fact, it was thrown back onto the seabed (or so claims Stenström) . It was never made available for examination. It was enough that he just looked at it and claims he measured it but I suspect it was measured 'by eye' as I doubt he had a tape measure hanging around his neck.
Click to expand...


You do quite a lot of this, don't you? And almost invariably, your "assumptions" are categorically wrong. Perhaps that should be informing you that you ought to do some proper research instead of "assuming". Don't you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom